From Newcomers To Americans: An Integration Policy For A Nation Of Immigrants

The United States long has been a nation of immigrants,
but its policies are out of step with this reality. Public
policies with regard to the foreign-born must go beyond
regulating who is admitted and under what circumstances.
The nation needs an immigrant-integration policy that effectively
addresses the challenges and harnesses the opportunities
created by today’s large immigrant population. It is not in
the best interests of the United States to make integration a
more difficult, uncertain, or lengthy process than it need be.
Facilitating the successful and rapid integration of immigrants
into U.S. society minimizes conflicts and tensions between
newcomers and the native-born, and enables immigrants to
more quickly secure better jobs, earn higher incomes, and
thus more fully contribute to the U.S. economy.

Among the findings of this report:

Today’s newcomers are integrating into U.S. society in ways reminiscent of immigrants from previous eras, with the children and grandchildren of immigrants mastering English, improving their educational status, and joining the U.S. workforce.

According to the 2000 census, 91.1 percent of the children and 97.0 percent of the grandchildren of Mexican immigrants spoke English well.

In 2004, the share of Mexican immigrants without a high-school diploma was 58.0 percent, but only 16.9 percent of their children lacked a diploma.

The federal government must take the lead in facilitating the integration of immigrants. But rather than dictate policy, the federal government should partner with state and local governments, NGOs, and the private sector in carrying out the business of integration.

The future prosperity of the United States depends on the success of today’s newcomers given that immigrants who have arrived in the United States since 1960 make up almost one in ten individuals in the country, while the children of these immigrants comprise more than 10 percent of the total population.

An active approach to integration is apparent in U.S. refugee policy. refugees to the United States are greeted by an expansive web of government agencies and NGOs tasked with facilitating their integration into U.S. society.

Civic integration of immigrants is essential and must involve opportunities to participate in civil society that facilitate trustful relationships between immigrant newcomers and all facets of their receiving community, especially law enforcement, elected officials, and other civic leaders.

Introduction

Immigrant integration has become a national issue as millions
of America’s newcomers adapt to communities that
must in turn adjust to the social, economic, and political
changes resulting from the presence of these newcomers.
Integration is an inevitable process wherein immigrants and
the communities in which they settle mutually adapt to
one another. But the inevitability of integration does not
always guarantee positive outcomes. Integration may follow
a path that leads to divisiveness between newcomers and
their receiving communities—a more likely outcome when
integration is left to chance. A sound immigrant-integration
policy can facilitate a more positive, unifying form
of integration that benefits immigrants, their receiving
communities, and the nation as a whole.

Political pundits and policymakers have done a good
deal of hand-wringing about integration, but government
policies are virtually silent on this issue. As congress and
the white House look to overhaul what most agree is a
broken immigration system, the debate revolves around
the laws that govern who is admitted to the United States
and under what circumstances, while giving at most a
symbolic nod to questions of integration. However, the
United States needs much more than an overhaul of its
immigration policy. This nation of immigrants also needs
an immigrant policy that takes a more active role in the
integration of newcomers, thereby maximizing the economic,
social, and cultural contributions that immigrants
make to the United States.

The Need For an Integration Policy

Comparisons between contemporary and past waves of
immigrants often lead to the conclusion that something
is amiss with the way today’s immigrants are integrating.
Fears about their lack of integration are largely exaggerated,
however. Though there is variation among groups, today’s
newcomers appear to be integrating into U.S. society in
ways reminiscent of immigrants from previous eras, with
the second-generation children and third-generation
grandchildren of first-generation immigrants mastering
English, improving their educational status, and joining
the U.S. workforce.[1]

Nearly all the children and grandchildren of immigrants
speak English well, regardless of ethnic origin. For instance,
according to the 2000 census, 91.1 percent of the children
and 97.0 percent of the grandchildren of Mexican immigrants
spoke English well. Similarly, 93.8 percent of the children and
98.4 percent of the grandchildren of Salvadoran immigrants
spoke English well in 2000 {Figure 1}.[2]

Patterns in educational attainment also evince intergenerational
improvement. Calculations from the 2004
current Population Survey show, for example, that the share
of Mexican immigrants without a high-school diploma was
58.0 percent, but only 16.9 percent of their children lacked a
diploma {Figure 2}. Conversely, only 5.7 percent of Mexican
immigrants had a college degree, compared to 14.1 percent
of their children {Figure 3.}[3]

In addition, immigrants and their children are hardly idle
when it comes to work. The 2004 current Population Survey
shows that adult immigrant men from canada, Europe, and
Australia had the lowest employment rate (83.4 percent), while
those from mexico had the highest (87.3 percent). Immigrants
actually tend to have somewhat higher rates of employment
than their children. The employment rate of second-generation
men from canada, Europe, and Australia was 82.6 percent,
while that of second-generation Mexicans was 81.1 percent.
Evidence of intergenerational improvement in employment
rates is pronounced among women. For instance, only 45.3 percent
of first-generation Mexican women were in the labor force,
compared to 70.2 percent of their daughters {Figure 4}.[4]

Mexicans, by far the largest immigrant group at 31 percent
of all foreign-born individuals, often are cited as an exception
to these larger integration trends. But they too appear to be
integrating over time, even if at a slower pace compared to other
groups. Sociologist richard Alba finds that each new generation
of Mexican-origin individuals born in the United States improves
on their parents’ educational attainment by an average of 2.5 years,
though the third generation still lags behind non-Hispanic whites
by 1-1.5 years (the gap is smaller among women).[5] Similarly, a
2006 study by RAND corporation economist James P. Smith
found that successive generations of Hispanics have experienced
significant improvements in wages and education relative both
to their fathers and grandfathers and to the native Anglos with
whom they competed in the labor market.[6]

These positive trends belie reactionary "solutions" to the
"immigrant problem." But the big picture also tends to gloss
over challenges that both immigrants and their receiving
communities confront on the ground. If left unaddressed,
cultural and linguistic barriers, distrust between immigrants
and receiving populations and institutions, and the economic,
political, and social marginalization of immigrants
and their descendents may lead to a form of integration that
results in mistrust and disunity. The United States simply
cannot afford such an outcome. The imperative for adopting
a policy that ensures positive integration becomes clearer
when considering the following factors:

The future prosperity of the United States depends on the success
of today’s newcomers. Immigrants who have arrived in the
United States since 1960 make up almost one in ten individuals
in the country, while the children of these immigrants
comprise more than 10 percent of the total population. These
children of immigrants, with an average age of 17, have not
yet entered the full-time workforce, but soon will comprise
a substantial proportion of American workers.[7] The nation’s
economic, political, and social futures thus rest on the successful
integration of these "immigrant stock" individuals.
Indeed, the nature of their integration will strongly influence
the ability of the United States to compete in an increasingly
global economy, the health of our democracy, the vitality of
civic life, and even the well-being of native-born families who
have lived in the country for generations. Perhaps the clearest
link between integration and the prosperity of the nation is
seen in the graying of the native-born population. As massive
numbers of baby boomers age into retirement, today’s second
generation is the workforce on which aging baby boomers will
depend for workers who provide both the direct services and
the tax base that support programs for the elderly.[8]

The importance of immigrants and their children to
the labor force is particularly acute in california, the most
populous state in the union and a state in which 26.2 percent
of the population was born abroad. Immigrants accounted
for 66.9 percent of the growth in california’s working-age
population between 1980 and 2005. Over the next 25 years,
however, the second generation will account for the majority
of this growth, at 59.5 percent, and immigrants will account
for almost all of the remaining growth.[9]

Immigrant integration is a national issue. Immigration is no
longer a regional phenomenon concentrated in a few, mostly
border states. While states like California, Florida, New
york, New Jersey, texas, and Illinois remain the most popular
immigrant destinations, since the early 1990s immigrants
have fanned out to new midwestern and Southern "gateways"
that previously received few newcomers {Figure 5}.

The rate of growth of the immigrant population in these
new gateway states is enormous. All of the top-five immigrant-
growth states from 1990 to 2005 are new gateways,
and these states have experienced a rate of growth between 3.4
and 4.8 times that of the nation as a whole during this period
{Figure 6}.[10] The national nature of immigration means that
communities throughout the country share a common set of
challenges and opportunities related to immigrant integration.
The benefits of a national integration policy, therefore, would
reach into virtually every corner of the national map.

Any overhaul of immigration policy will have significant
implications for integration. Despite the failure of the 109th
congress to pass major immigration-reform legislation, the
white House and new leadership in congress are expected
to try again in the 110th. An earned-legalization program
for undocumented immigrants now in the United States is
once again likely to be a centerpiece of any proposed immigration
overhaul. Many of the unauthorized immigrants
whose legal status would change under such a program
already are experiencing some degree of integration. Unauthorized
immigrants constitute nearly 5 percent of the
U.S. labor force and many have children who are U.S.
citizens (64 percent of children living in an unauthorized
family are U.S. citizens by birth).[11] A change in the legal
status of undocumented immigrants would more deeply
plant their roots in the United States, making their positive
integration all the more necessary.

The inclusion of a guest-worker program in a larger immigration-
reform package also has relevance for integration.
Even if workers are in the country on a temporary basis, some
degree of integration will take place. Guest workers will live
in communities throughout the nation, and the way in which
receiving communities and guest workers interact with each
other will determine the success of such a program.

Past Integration Policies

In looking ahead to an integration policy for immigrants
to the United States, it is worth examining and learning
from past efforts. The nation historically has taken two
broad approaches to immigrant integration. The first sees
a role for policies that actively encourage integration. This
more proactive approach first appeared on a large scale
with the Americanization movement of the 1910s and
1920s. Faced with large numbers of immigrants arriving
primarily from Eastern and Southern Europe, communities
throughout the country engaged in a massive effort to integrate
and, in some instances, forcibly turn immigrants into
"Americans." Programs coordinated by public- and privatesector
organizations provided English-language training,
civics classes, and symbolic displays of patriotism—all
aimed at expediting the removal of "old world ways" and
the adoption of a singular American identity.[12]

The ideological underpinnings of the Americanization
movement resonate in many of today’s policy initiatives.
English-only campaigns at the state and national levels,
efforts to limit immigrants’ access to public resources, and
bills that propose tightening citizenship requirements are all
present-day policy cousins of the Americanization movement
that aim to preserve an un-changed ideal of American
identity. The problem with this approach to integration is
that it often achieves outcomes that contradict those which
policymakers intend. Americanization-style initiatives
become a significant basis for division. Instead of turning
their allegiances towards an American mainstream, immigrants
and their children may begin to turn their backs on a
country that they believe has rejected them. Efforts to strip
immigrants and their children of their ethnic allegiances altogether
can also have deleterious academic and psychological
outcomes that further inhibit positive integration.[13]

A more thoughtful, but equally active approach to integration
is apparent in U.S. refugee policy. Refugees to the
United States are greeted by an expansive web of government
agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
tasked with facilitating their integration into U.S. society.
Established under the refugee Act of 1980, the Office of
refugee resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health
and Human Services heads refugee integration by providing
funds for, "among other benefits and services, cash and medical
assistance, employment preparation and job placement,
skills training, English-language training, social adjustment
and aid for victims of torture."[14] ORR’s efforts appear to be
successful, but the reach of their programs is limited to the
5 percent of the immigrant population annually admitted as
refugees or asylees. The other 95 percent have no access to
assistance aside from a small amount of funding for Englishlanguage
acquisition and some workforce training provided
by a patchwork of programs that together do not constitute
a coherent integration policy.

A second and more predominant approach to immigrant
integration involves virtually no policy intervention.
This laissez faire method relies on a combination of immigrants’
remarkable motivation and the ability of the
labor market to provide jobs and incomes that, over time,
facilitate the entrance of newcomers into the American
economic, political, and social mainstream. However, the
stakes are too high to rely on a laissez faire approach. The
extent to which the prosperity of the United States depends
on immigrants and their children, the national nature of
immigration, and the sweeping changes that would result
from enactment of comprehensive immigration legislation
make an immigrant-integration policy essential.

Principles of an Immigrant-Integration Policy

The principles on which a national immigrant-integration
policy might be based can be gleaned from successful
local-level integration initiatives in places like Santa Clara
county, California,[15] and the state of Illinois,[16] as well
as experimental efforts spearheaded by a coalition of government
agencies and NGOs in Lowell, massachusetts;
Nashville, Tennessee; and Portland, Oregon.[17]

Integration is a two-way process. Any integration policy
must begin from the premise that immigrants influence the
communities in which they settle as much as these communities
influence the immigrants. Programs supported by
a comprehensive integration policy, therefore, must place
mutual responsibility for integration on both immigrant
newcomers and their receiving communities. Accordingly,
the aim of a successful integration policy is not just to help
immigrants find their way in a new land, but also to help
receiving communities adjust to the economic, political,
and social shifts that immigration entails.

The federal government must take the lead. Immigration has
long been considered a federal policy issue, while integration is
largely relegated to individuals, local governments, and NGOs.
But immigration and integration go hand-in-hand, and this
division of labor thus makes little sense. Integration is a federal
responsibility and a federal integration policy should function
alongside immigration policy. The federal government must
serve as the "north star" for integration, setting guidelines and
goals for integration programs implemented at the local level.
Rather than dictate policy, the federal government should partner
with state and local governments, NGOs, and the private
sector in carrying out the business of integration.

Integration takes place at the local level. An integration policy
must be spearheaded by the federal government, while allowing
for flexibility in meeting challenges and opportunities that
vary by locale. Although the effects of immigrant integration
reverberate throughout U.S. society, it is at the local level
where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Because some
communities have a long history of immigration, they have
existing institutional mechanisms that better equip them to
carry out the business of integration. Other communities,
however, have only a very recent history of immigration and
lack these institutional mechanisms. The different immigrant
groups that predominate in different locales also create an array
of challenges and opportunities, requiring flexibility in the
local implementation of integration programs. For example,
minneapolis, minnesota, where the immigrant population is
dominated by Southeast Asian refugees, likely faces a different
set of cultural, linguistic, and social challenges and opportunities
than Dalton county, Georgia, where nearly all immigrants
are laborers from Latin America.

There are certain aspects of integration that are essential to the
success of both immigrants and receiving communities. If there
is one aspect of integration that is preeminently important,
it is English-language acquisition. There is little doubt that
knowing English dramatically facilitates full participation
in U.S. society, and an integration policy must have English-
language acquisition as a centerpiece. Learning English
does not require immigrants and their children to jettison
their mother tongue, however. They are more successfully
integrated, in fact, when they retain their native language
while learning English,[18] and having a bilingual workforce
makes the United States more competitive in the global
economy. Civic integration of immigrants is essential, but
should not be relegated to the memorization of basic facts
about U.S. history and civics. It also must involve opportunities
to participate in civil society that facilitate trustful
relationships between immigrant newcomers and all facets
of their receiving community, especially law enforcement,
elected officials, and other civic leaders.

Integration is more than just U.S. citizenship. U.S.
citizenship is an essential goal of integration, but integration
begins well before an immigrant takes the oath of
citizenship. An integration policy should aim to develop
important precursors to citizenship, like English-language
acquisition, civic participation, and socioeconomic mobility.
These antecedents provide immigrants with a greater
stake in their adopted communities and make them more
likely to eventually become citizens.[19]

Integration requires the cooperation of many different actors.
Virtually every sector of U.S. society has a stake in successful
integration, and all actors in receiving communities have an
important role to play. As refugee resettlement programs suggest,
integration is most successful when federal, state, and
local governments along with NGOs and the private sector
work in collaboration with immigrant newcomers.

2 Richard Alba, Language Assimilation Today: Bilingualism Persists More Than in the Past, But English Still Dominates (Working paper 111). La Jolla, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration
Studies, University of California-San Diego, November 2004, Table 1 {Calculations based on 5-Percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) from the 2000 Census.}

8 Dowell Myers, Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007.

9 Dowell Myers, John Pitkin & Julie Park, California Demographic Futures: Projections to 2030, by Immigrant Generations, Nativity, and Time of Arrival in U.S. Los Angeles, CA: Population
Dynamics Research Group, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, February 2005, p. 18.

10 Author’s calculations based on U.S. Decennial Census and 2005 American Community Survey data compiled by the Migration Policy Institute.

11 Jeffrey S. Passel, Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic
Center, 2006, p. 8-9.

12 John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925. New York, NY: Atheneum, 1963 [1955], chap. 9.

17 The Building the New American Community Initiative, which included the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Migration Policy Institute, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Immigration Forum, the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), and the Urban Institute. See www.migrationpolicy.org/news/2004_12_9.php for more information.